The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The fact that the Defendant, in collusion with the person who was not aware of his name on April 6, 2020, imported the psychotropic drug clocks (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”), is recognized.

However, there was no perception that the Defendant did not have known in advance the amount of the penphone concealed in the part of the mother, and the Defendant could not have anticipated that he would display approximately KRW 94.65g of the penphones. Therefore, there was no perception that the Defendant would be more than five million in value of the penphone imported.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment on the misconception of facts as to the part on the importation of philophones

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, along with the name and non-explor who resides in Cambodia, planned to import the penphone into the Republic of Korea using air special transport cargo; (b) the name-explored person, who sent the penphone from Cambodia to the Republic of Korea; and (c) the Defendant conspired to act in the Republic of Korea to receive the above penphone.

Since then, in Cambodia, approximately 94.65g of opphonephones were concealed in the mother part of Cambodia, and then the name of the reported item was sent to the Incheon Central Port in the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government, through E on April 6, 2020, stating the place of receipt as “C”, “C”, and “In Incheon Gyeyang-gu,” the place of receipt. The above air special invoice arrived at the port of supply of Incheon Central Port in the Jung-gu, Incheon.

As a result, the Defendant imported approximately 94.65g of philophones (hereinafter “instant philophones”) in collusion with the above-mentioned person in order to import approximately 13,251,000 won from Cambodia to the Republic of Korea.

B. When determining the credibility of a confession made by the defendant in the lower judgment, whether the content of the confession statement itself is objectively reasonable, and the motive or reason for the confession is.